Review of Literature
thumb|right|364px|This video by RSA Animate elaborates many of the issues in todays education arena as well as how they came to be. Marilyn Cochran-Smith presents six principles of pedagogy that contribute to the act of teaching for social justice (Cochran-Smith 2004). While each of these principles offer opportunities to improve commitments to student education, the fourth principle in particular speaks largely to student life outside of school. It states: “Work with (not against) individuals, families and communities”. The notion of “working against” individuals, families and communities has plagued educational arenas for decades. In fact, Valenzuela noted in Subtractive Schooling that “sustained reciprocal relationships are the basis for all learning” (Valenzuela 1999). Often, however, educators in these arenas, perhaps for lack of know-how or motivation to act as change agents, work against their counterparts with or without being aware of the repercussions of their actions. To combat this behavior, Cochran-Smith suggests that educators… “… draw on family history, traditions, and stories as well as demonstrating respect for all students’ family and cultural values well as notice and critique the implicit messages conveyed about students and their families, consciously rethinking … assumptions and avoiding the imposition of their judgments on others” (Cochran-Smith 2004).By incorporating parents into the classroom, teachers can enhance the education of their students. With that said however, this incorporation does little good if teachers are unwilling to reevaluate their own assumptions about differing cultural backgrounds. One overarching similarity among many schools is the reasons for which parent-teacher communication exists. Generally speaking, interactions between teachers and parents rest in addressing a problem the student is having in class or requests for funds or fund raising (Ferlazzo, 2011). It is understandable that such foreboding communication does not raise student achievement. Naturally, students address their education as a basis for controlling negative interactions between their teacher and their parent instead of approaching their schooling with an innate desire for growth. Likewise, parents dread this phone call home for fear of bad news or requests for money. Certainly simple changes, such as providing regular school-initiated phone calls home with positive reinforcements could improve parent-teacher involvement to an extent (Williams et al. 2011). However, connections which build on relationships, listening, welcoming and shared decision making “can produce multiple benefits for students including higher grade point averages and test scores, better attendance, enrollment in more challenging courses, better social skills, and improved behavior at home and at school” (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2002). The distinction between these relationships separates parent involvement from parent engagement. Larry Ferlazzo, author of “Involvement or Engagement?” differentiates the terms: “…involvement implies doing to; … engagement implies doing with” (Ferlazzo 2011). While Ferlazzo concedes that there is place for parent involvement in schools, parent engagement provides for a much more rewarding outcome for students, families, schools and their communities. Simply by listening to students’ parents, educators can glean information to focus curriculum directly towards hopes parents have for their children. This development, therefore, connects parents directly to their child’s education as a means for support and encouragement. In most populations (particularly those with local schools, as is the case throughout most of New York City), parents form the backbone of the community. Teachers, administrators and school personnel, to the contrary, typically come from outside communities and are therefore disconnected from the school community until active effort is set in motion to create a bond. This bond has the potential to enhance achievement and avoid otherwise crippling outcomes of the community school relationship. Author, Jean Anyon, elaborates in her book Radical Possibilities: “When educators work with community residents as equals and as change agents to organize for better education, movement building is taking place; and as a not inconsequential outcome, schools typically improve and student achievement increases. Research suggests that there are several reasons for this raised student achievement, including community pressure for more resources and district accountability, increased parental engagement, and improved staff development and pedagogy” (Anyon 2005). Simply by incorporating the community into the education system, the New York City public school system could tap into achievement increasing resources far beyond the superficial help teachers usually elicit from parents. As with any relationship, parent-teacher interaction can evolve in a variety of ways. Jackie Laluvein’s research shows parent-teacher relationship variations ranging from ‘antagonistic’ and ‘benign ignorance’ to ‘mutually supportive’ and ‘networking’ (Laluvein, 2010). It is important for educators to recognize the potential difficulties they may encounter with parents so that they might alter (not eradicate) the interactions. Likewise, positive interactions should be utilized to their utmost possibilities in an effort to maximize relationship productivity. Ideally, the communication is ongoing, consistently informing its counterpart. Then, should conflicts arise, mutual respect guides parents and teachers to a solution after having researched the problem together (Laluvein, 2010). It should be noted that teachers are not the only representatives from schools parents come in contact with. All school personnel must be aware of (and combat if need be) their biases in relationship to student expectations with regards to culture, class, race, gender, and/or religion. These views can act as a deterrent from parent-school interaction, should the school representative allow their misconceptions to influence the treatment of parents. According to research on understanding school-family partnerships at an inner-city high school, parents interviewed “noted that the exchanges initiated by school personnel were often negative in tone” (Williams et al. 2011). This is backed by evidence that shows “educators who view low-income parents as hostile, impulsive, incoherent, and irresponsible will initiate contact and communicate with parents in a controlling, disrespectful and demoralizing manner.” While this unnecessary disparity exists between schools and families, little can be done to perpetuate a trusting, interactive relationship that is needed to support parent engagement in schools.